According to the link in the description, since there is not a license header at the top of the source files, no LICENSE file at the root of the repo, and no license in the <Licenses> section of the pom.xml, the project falls under the MIT license.

Unless there are parts of your code that are explicitly licensed under other terms, if you are the maintainer then I would expect you can select a license (of course I'm not a legal scholar, so take that with a grain of salt).

Is it possible for you to contact the Jenkins project to seek advice for this situation? I'm hoping I can convince my legal department that the code is licensed under the MIT license per the noted wiki page, but an explicit license in the repo for the plugin would make things much more clear for everyone.

Jason Bowen
added a comment - 2017-06-12 01:03 According to the link in the description, since there is not a license header at the top of the source files, no LICENSE file at the root of the repo, and no license in the <Licenses> section of the pom.xml, the project falls under the MIT license.
Unless there are parts of your code that are explicitly licensed under other terms, if you are the maintainer then I would expect you can select a license (of course I'm not a legal scholar, so take that with a grain of salt).
Is it possible for you to contact the Jenkins project to seek advice for this situation? I'm hoping I can convince my legal department that the code is licensed under the MIT license per the noted wiki page, but an explicit license in the repo for the plugin would make things much more clear for everyone.